LEGAL ETHICS: CANON II. Propriety

A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON “CANON II. PROPRIETY” IN PHILIPPINE LEGAL ETHICS

1. INTRODUCTION

In Philippine legal ethics, “Propriety” embodies the foundational principle that legal professionals—whether they be judges, lawyers, or court personnel—must conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence in the legal system. Although various codes and canons of ethics have been promulgated in the Philippines, the common thread is that every person in the legal profession bears the duty to avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.

When one refers to “Canon II. Propriety,” it typically appears in certain formulations of judicial or legal ethical codes (for example, the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct stated in Canon 2 that judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance thereof; in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, “Propriety” is addressed under Canon 4). Regardless of the specific numbering or labeling in different codes, the substance remains consistent: legal professionals must uphold the dignity of the profession, avoid any behavior that erodes public trust, and adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct.

This discussion covers the concept of “Propriety” as it applies to lawyers and judges under Philippine rules and jurisprudence, highlighting the obligations, common pitfalls, and illustrative case rulings of the Supreme Court.

2. LEGAL BASES AND FRAMEWORK

  1. 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct

    • Canon 2: “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”
    • This Code enumerated specific rules on how judges should behave within and outside the courtroom.

  2. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, effective 2004)

    • Canon 4: Propriety.
    • This superseded much of the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct and provides an updated, detailed set of rules on how judges must comport themselves, emphasizing the importance of propriety and the appearance of propriety in all judicial and extrajudicial conduct.

  3. Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) for Lawyers (effective 1988, now subject to recent revisions under the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability).

    • While the original CPR does not use the exact heading “Canon II: Propriety,” its canons and rules repeatedly require lawyers to conduct themselves properly, uphold the dignity of the legal profession, and avoid any act that would bring disrepute to the justice system. Examples include:
      • Canon 7: A lawyer shall uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession…
      • Canon 1: Respect for law, the Constitution, and legal processes.
    • Under the 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (NCPRA), the substance of “propriety” is interwoven in several canons emphasizing integrity, respect, accountability, and the avoidance of conflict of interest.

Although the specific language and numbering differ, the essence is uniform: an ethical imperative that persons in the legal profession must consistently project and practice conduct that is beyond reproach.

3. SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF “PROPRIETY”

“Propriety” in the legal context is broad, addressing both professional conduct and personal conduct:

  1. Professional Conduct

    • Dealings with Clients: A lawyer (or judge, in judicial matters) must treat all parties with respect, candor, and fairness. Charging exorbitant or illegal fees, overstepping the bounds of representation, or engaging in unethical tactics are forms of impropriety.
    • Relations with the Court: Lawyers must show respect to the judiciary, avoid dilatory tactics, and refrain from any attempt to influence judges improperly. Judges themselves must exhibit fairness, impartiality, and courtesy in the courtroom.
    • Public Statements: Lawyers and judges must be cautious in public discourse. Judges in particular must not issue statements that could compromise their impartiality or the public perception thereof. Lawyers must avoid sensationalizing legal disputes in media to gain undue advantage or publicity.

  2. Personal Conduct

    • Avoiding Scandalous Behavior: Even outside the courtroom, legal professionals must refrain from conduct that might reflect adversely on their moral character or the dignity of the profession (e.g., public drunkenness, involvement in public brawls, indecorous social media postings).
    • Financial Dealings and Conflicts of Interest: Accepting bribes or gifts that could be interpreted as attempts to curry favor, misusing client funds, or engaging in dubious business ventures that compromise impartiality are all direct violations of propriety.
    • Social Media Presence: In modern times, posts or comments that degrade the image of the judiciary or the legal profession may be deemed improper. Legal professionals are expected to maintain decorum in all platforms.

4. KEY PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PROPRIETY

  1. Maintenance of Public Confidence

    • The justice system rests heavily on public trust. Any conduct suggesting bias, dishonesty, or improper motivation undermines that trust and tarnishes the image of the courts and the bar.

  2. Integrity and Impartiality

    • Integrity means consistent adherence to moral and ethical principles; impartiality requires freedom from personal interests or prejudices. Propriety is intimately tied to these two concepts because questionable behavior almost always involves a lapse in honesty or objectivity.

  3. Avoidance of Impropriety and Appearance of Impropriety

    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that it is not enough to be righteous—one must also act and appear righteous. In other words, perception matters. Judges and lawyers must avoid situations that might reasonably lead others to suspect partiality, conflict of interest, or moral failing.

  4. Dignified Behavior and Courtesy

    • Propriety calls for politeness, courtesy, and civility in words and deeds. Lawyers must not engage in personal attacks against opposing counsel or the courts; judges must remain patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, and lawyers.

5. ILLUSTRATIVE RULES (BASED ON THE 1989 AND NEW CODES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT)

While the New Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 4: Propriety) enumerates specific rules, below are the general teachings distilled from both the old and new provisions:

  1. Rule on Public Demeanor

    • Judges must conduct themselves in a manner free from scandal and reproach, whether in public or private life, to preserve the integrity of the bench. Lawyers similarly must ensure their public behavior does not bring discredit to the profession.

  2. Rule on Personal Relationships

    • Close personal relationships with litigants, counsel, or persons of questionable reputation can create suspicion of partiality. The Supreme Court has warned against socializing in a way that could undermine the appearance of independence.

  3. Rule on Financial Dealings

    • Judges are prohibited from receiving gifts, favors, or loans from parties who might come before them. Lawyers are reminded not to offer, directly or indirectly, any form of compensation or benefit that might undermine the independence of the judiciary.
    • Lawyers themselves are also subject to restrictions on charging unconscionable fees and commingling client funds.

  4. Rule on Avoiding Media Sensationalism

    • Judges should not seek publicity or grant interviews in pending or impending cases. Lawyers must likewise avoid trial by publicity and refrain from making grossly misleading public statements about ongoing litigation.

  5. Rule on Extrajudicial Activities

    • Judges must ensure that their extracurricular or extrajudicial activities (business dealings, fund-raising, social gatherings) do not compromise their impartiality, or appear to do so. Lawyers must similarly ensure that outside engagements do not conflict with their professional responsibilities or degrade the profession’s reputation.

6. SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has produced a rich body of decisions clarifying how “propriety” is to be measured. A few representative themes:

  1. Appearance of Impropriety Is Sufficient

    • Jurisprudence has stressed that a mere perception of bias or unethical conduct can be just as damaging as the real thing. For instance, the Court has admonished judges who maintain close social ties with litigants because it creates a perception of undue influence.

  2. Strict Accountability

    • The Court disciplines judges and lawyers for acts committed both in their professional capacity and in private life if such acts tarnish the integrity of the judiciary or the bar. This includes immoral conduct, dishonesty, or publicly scandalous behavior.

  3. Civility in Court Proceedings

    • Lawyers who use abusive language or brazen accusations against courts or opposing parties are subject to disciplinary action. Judges who belittle or unfairly chastise lawyers or litigants also risk sanctions.

  4. Upholding the Honor of the Profession

    • In many rulings, the Supreme Court has underscored that a single act of impropriety can erode the public’s confidence in the entire justice system. Thus, the Court imposes penalties ranging from reprimand, suspension, to disbarment (for lawyers) or dismissal (for judges), depending on the gravity of the offense.

7. COMMON PITFALLS AND PRACTICAL POINTERS

  1. Social Media Overreach

    • Lawyers and judges should exercise caution in what they post or endorse on social media. Even “lighthearted” content can appear frivolous or offensive, and interactions with parties or counsels online can be misinterpreted.

  2. Over-familiarity with Clients or Litigants

    • Lawyers must maintain a professional distance from their clients, and judges must do the same with counsel and litigants, to avoid any suggestion of partiality or favoritism.

  3. Handling of Client Funds (for Lawyers)

    • Mishandling or commingling client funds is strictly prohibited. Even suspicion of impropriety in financial matters can lead to serious sanctions.

  4. Accepting Gifts and Favors

    • Judges should refuse gifts from persons with pending or impending cases; lawyers must also refrain from offering or facilitating gifts that could be construed as an attempt to influence court processes.

  5. Public Pronouncements and Media Interviews

    • Judges are particularly restricted from commenting on cases. Lawyers must also tread carefully to avoid prejudicing the administration of justice or engaging in trial by publicity.

8. CONCLUSION

Propriety is a cornerstone of legal ethics in the Philippines. Whether termed “Canon II” or “Canon 4,” whether embedded in the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct, the New Code of Judicial Conduct, or reflected in the principles of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, the overarching message is the same: Conduct—both professional and personal—must reflect honesty, integrity, and respect for the law.

Legal professionals hold positions of public trust. Their actions, great or small, can either fortify or erode the public’s faith in the justice system. Thus, being ever-conscious of propriety—avoiding even the slightest appearance of impropriety—is not merely a suggestion but an ethical mandate. In the words of the Supreme Court, “the judiciary (and the bar) cannot survive without the people’s trust; that trust is built not only by the decisions that come out of our courts but also by the moral authority of those who render them and the conduct of those who practice law before them.”

Ultimately, a strict adherence to propriety ensures that the noble calling of the law remains a beacon of justice and fairness, preserving the sanctity of judicial and legal processes for generations to come.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login